On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 00:16:21 -0400, Andreas Kloeckner <li...@informa.tiker.net> wrote: > On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 14:12:22 +0200, Peter Schmidtke <pschmid...@ub.edu> wrote: > > however seen the imprecision issues with gpuarrays I suppose > > I'd better not use them on Fermis right now? > > A week and a half or so back, I loosened the test bounds for these > functions to accommodate Fermi. (perhaps CUDA 3.1 in general) I wouldn't > make too much of this. Yes, precision has somewhat regressed. But a) not > catastrophically, and probably for a handsome speed gain, and b) the > purpose of these tests is to make sure that something reasonable (i.e. > not garbage) is returned. > > (Just to clarify: These precision issues are in Nvidia's special > functions, and have nothing to do with GPUArray itself, which just uses > them.)
I must be getting old. The loosening of the test bounds was in PyOpenCL, not PyCUDA. Sorry for the confusion. In any case, test_gpuarray fully passes for me on Fermi with current git. Peter, Julien, anyone: are you still seeing problems/failures? Andreas
pgpKU2KxMFFtC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ PyCUDA mailing list PyCUDA@tiker.net http://lists.tiker.net/listinfo/pycuda
